I am wondering what support, if any, a proposal like this would receive. If implemented one problem I see is that there would not be enough aerobatic aircraft suitable for training in Canada at this time.

Biennual flight reviews would improve safety as well.
Cessna built the 152 aerobat one of the cheapest aerobatic airplanes to operate ,perhaps such a training requirement would prompt Cessna to do a couple of production runs of that great airplane to meet the demand that such a rule would create.

I like the Aerobat but they are a little too small for some of the people now. The biannual like they do in the US would be good if any commercial pilot could sign you off and FTU's were not involved.

The poll has run for a few weeks now and I am pleased to see pilots consider it to be worthwhile to do a bit of acro to polish off their licence. I wonder why, if pilots deem it to be usefull, the MOT has not looked into the subject?

Over the years I have met quite a few former Warsaw Pact pilots and they received acro during their initial training.

I don't think it must be mandatory, but I would love to be able to get take training and would consider a "must" personally. Just as it is with cars - most people have no clue, but those who took effort to go through advanced training tend to do much better over the years.

akoch wrote:I don't think it must be mandatory, but I would love to be able to get take training and would consider a "must" personally. Just as it is with cars - most people have no clue, but those who took effort to go through advanced training tend to do much better over the years.

I agree that there is enough mandatory hoops a person must jump through as things stand at present. For a private pilot it is doubtfull he would need it considering the number of hours in the air he would total in his lifetime. To have any usefullness the training would have to be to an actual standard of quality and not watered down to another checkmark in a PTR.

I think it would be something a person would look forward to while getting his licence however, much like spin training or hood work is.

My concern is the relative "unavailability" of the aerobatic training. Both in terms of schools, planes, instructors and also culture that goes along. Oh, this is coming from a student BTW.

I have to ask the question here on what is felt to be the major issue here that is needed to be adressed? Are people regularly getting into what one would be considered an "upset"? If so are the skills they recieve on the PPL not sufficient to recover from them?

Don't get me wrong, I believe any such training that enhances one's understanding of how the airplane handles is valuable, but I'm also interested in targetting specific issues as well. TC regularly comes down on us in flight training with the typical edict "be more safer!" but often are very vague in what the actual problem they percieve is.

If we see that pilots getting into "upsets" is a problem, why don't we also adress where these problem areas are? Airplanes after all don't just get upside down by themselves, for that matter most of them resist it as much as possible. Are people flying through the wakes of large aircraft? Are people unaware of the turbulence and air current behavior associated with mountain flying? Are people wandering too close or into CBs? Are student pilots doing their best to terrify their instructors? Is there a lot of people out there attempting aerobatics with no training?

The last one is of special mention. Much like how the instrument training was brought in because people of the PPL level just can't stay out of clouds, do we need more aerobatic training mandated in the PPL because we can't count on PPL holders not to just attempt it on their own?

I think it should be mandatory for all. However, I do see your point Shiny Side Up. And I don't think people getting into 'upset' situations is really a major issue, or something on the rise. In any case, I don't have any stats or info to confirm that one way or the other.

My issue, is that I believe basic stick & rudder skills have deteriorated over the last 40 years, and I believe this type of training would be a major step in the right direction to begin addressing that. I'm talking about if you compare folks who learned to fly tail draggers off of short turf strips vs the average new pilot who learned on a 172 at a sizable regional airport.

It's no secret I'm a glider guy (a product of the air cadet program), and I'm far more comfortable flying with the folks from that group than with other general aviation types. I just see a huge difference in the overall stick & rudder flying ability. The number of pilots I know who tell me they are actually scared of spins (spin training) is alarming. When they describe the spin they did in training, well, it's not right. Whatever they did that scared them, wasn't a spin.

Aircraft operate in a 3D environment, and far too many have never seen anything beyond straight and level. To me, its an issue of exposing people to a wider range of the flight envelope, in a safe controlled manner, so an emergency isn't the first time they've seen/experienced it. Okay, so the 'classic' stall/spin on final scenario may not happen any more frequently now than in the past ... but each time it does happen its tragic. Why not force people to do these things so they can experience the sensation first hand and be able to recognize the signs of it happening in real life?

My issue, is that I believe basic stick & rudder skills have deteriorated over the last 40 years, and I believe this type of training would be a major step in the right direction to begin addressing that. I'm talking about if you compare folks who learned to fly tail draggers off of short turf strips vs the average new pilot who learned on a 172 at a sizable regional airport.

That I won't argue, my main point being that if its basic stick and rudder that's lacking, then lets concentrate there on what needs to be fixed than putting emphasis somewhere else. My mind is that a lot of the aviation community focuses on how to recover from problems rather than preventing them.

Aircraft operate in a 3D environment, and far too many have never seen anything beyond straight and level. To me, its an issue of exposing people to a wider range of the flight envelope, in a safe controlled manner, so an emergency isn't the first time they've seen/experienced it.

In my opinion, I think the real problem lies in what we require of pilots to stay current. One of the most common things I hear from renter pilots when I check them out is "I haven't done that since training." In many cases "training" will have been upwards of ten to fifteen years ago, and that includes I should say a lot of commercial and ATPL pilots with a lot of hours under their belt.

Okay, so the 'classic' stall/spin on final scenario may not happen any more frequently now than in the past ... but each time it does happen its tragic. Why not force people to do these things so they can experience the sensation first hand and be able to recognize the signs of it happening in real life?

Even if we force them to at the beginning, I think we should then back that up with requiring that training to be recurrent. The real problem I feel is that the basics aren't being kept up to a satisfactory level. I know a lot of students whom if I asked them right now how to get out of a spin they would be able to give me a satisfactory answer. I know that if I asked the same group of people six months after each of them had completed their license that number would be halved, and two years after their license completion, maybe down to ten percent. As it is now, there isn't much requirement for pilots to even keep up basic skills nevermind complex ones.

I suspect that if we did proper ultra slow flight/high AOA work that it would go a long way to eliminating stall/spin accidents. While its easy enough to teach somebody to recover from a spin by rote, its far harder to fly a plane right at the stall AOA and keep it there while motoring around turning or whatever. I.e. teach people how to walk on the edge of the cliff and they are less likely to fall off.

It appears to me that the pigeons have come home to roost. Since the spin requirement was taken out of the PPL several years ago pilot skills and training standards have dropped. The problem lies with Transport, they have failed to maintain minimum standards in the flight training industry.
Why is that?
We need to get spins put back into PPL first.
I think that flight instructors should be required to do upset training. It's ridiculous to have to fly with an instructor that has never done a roll.
LGM

cgzro wrote:I suspect that if we did proper ultra slow flight/high AOA work that it would go a long way to eliminating stall/spin accidents.

mashowski wrote:Since the spin requirement was taken out of the PPL several years ago pilot skills and training standards have dropped...
...We need to get spins put back into PPL first.

Firstly, both of these items are required in the private pilot training, it a matter I feel of pilots being more held to this ability. I am of the firm opinon that many pilots don't have the ability because they don't practice it regularly rather than were never taught it.

Secondly, The thing to remember though about if pilots are getting into situations where they need to really put to the test their abilities in this regard, then their getting there because their basic flying skills are sub-par. People don't get into spins by accidents because they don't know how to recover from one, they get into them because they a) Aren't paying attention to the airplane, b) can't fly stabilized climbs, turns, descents or especially combination climbing turns and descending turns or, c) a combination of both.

I think that flight instructors should be required to do upset training. It's ridiculous to have to fly with an instructor that has never done a roll.

A common leap in logic many pilots make if they have a skill others don't. I'd also reccomend that all pilots learn to fly off of floats as it gives some very applicable abilities and skills to land the airplane - I don't think someone is a lesser pilot because they haven't though. One has to ask, what do you think the benefit of learning this would be? Are students constantly getting airplanes upside down? I ain't seeing it - and I can say I've seen a lot of good tries. I know there are some here who have been put into that predicament, but when it comes down to it, its a pretty small area of concern when it comes to improving pilot skills.

I would also say that no one says you have to fly with an instructor who's never done rolls. If as a student you felt you knew enough that this is a talent you should require from your instructor to learn a private license, you can of course request it. I'd expect to pay top dollar.

Only spin avoidance training is in the PPL curriculum. The spin is not required on the PPL flight test.
LGM

mashowski wrote:Only spin avoidance training is in the PPL curriculum. The spin is not required on the PPL flight test.
LGM

Wrong. While the spin is not required on the test - and for that matter a full spin is now no longer required on the CPL test, it is still required to have the student enter and recover the spin during their PPL training. The student's performance in this regard is left up to the instructor.

That being said, TC doen't do much to monitor this and I'm aware that some instructors are not fulfilling this requirement, being under the impression that since it isn't a test item, that spins aren't required.

From the Instructor Guide;
Only spin entries are required to be demonstrated and practiced by the student.
It does not say to let the spin develop past the incipient stage.
Spin recovery techniques are included here for the instructors benefit so he/she can recover if (and only if!) "the spin entry is allowed to proceed beyond this point."
I apologize if I failed to make this clear in my last post.

(c) Demonstrate recovery action:
(i) from the transition stage and the initial phase of the incipient stage — recover
as from an aggravated stall;
(ii) if the spin entry is allowed to proceed beyond this point:
(A) follow the recovery technique recommended in the Pilot Operating
Handbook for that particular model and year of aircraft, or
(B) in the case where there is no published recovery action:
— power to idle, neutralize ailerons;
— apply and hold full opposite rudder;
— move control column positively forward and hold these control
inputs until rotation stops;
— centralize rudder and level wings;
— ease out of the ensuing dive with minimum reasonable loss of
altitude.
— apply power as necessary to return to normal flight.
NOTE: If an aircraft enters a spin with the flaps extended, they should be retracted at
the first opportunity after initial recovery action has been taken.
(d) Student practice.
(2) Spin entries should be demonstrated from:
(a) A power-off descent;
(b) Climbing manoeuvres;
(c) A low speed descending turn when rudder is used incorrectly to increase rate of turn;
(d) A steep climbing turn;
(e) High "G" flight conditions (simulated at low speed).
(3) Demonstrate spin entries with power on — (close throttle on entry

The problem with traditional spin training is it was usually taught as a stand alone exercise. At the PPL level if buddy has entered a spin than they have already failed three levels of basic aircraft handling.

1) He/she has allowed the aircraft to enter a high AOA state

2) By failing to recognize this high AOA has let the aircraft stall, and then

3) has failed to control the aircrafts uncommanded yaw, thus allowing the stalled condition to progress to a spin.

Or to put it simply has failed in their abitity to control the aircraft at a pretty basic level

The actions required to deliberately cause the aircraft to spin IMO only should be taught as part of an aerobatic course.

Spin avoidance has to start with stall avoidance. Stall avoidance has to start with recognizing a dangerously high AOA. The accident stats are pretty clear. A PPL unintentionally entering a spin usually results in a fatal accident. As far as I am concerned a student has passed the "spin" exercise by not letting the aircraft spin in the first place, or if they are DUMB enough to get into a spin, have recognized and recovered as soon as possible. I think the changes to the flight test standards are good but what is IMO often still missing at the FTU level, is the PDM part that links the slow flight flight/stall/incipient spin entry together in a compelling narative

IMO often still missing at the FTU level, is the PDM part that links the slow flight flight/stall/incipient spin entry together in a compelling narative

I think you hit the nail on the head here. In my experience many pilots don't have a full or complete understanding here. Unfortunately, many don't get that level of understanding until they've had to fly the lesson repeatedly - from the instructor side. I've really noted that its a weak point, to the point of which the slow flight briefing is the one I always make a new instructor hire demonstrate as part of the interview process.

or if they are DUMB enough to get into a spin, have recognized and recovered as soon as possible.

I've always been of the opinion that if someone is DUMB enough to get into a spin, then it would be a pretty big leap to think that they would be smart enough to have remembered the recovery. How many pilots here have been in a spin unintentionally? How many of those that did recovered in time? You won't find many who answer yes to both questions.

Shiny Side Up wrote:

mashowski wrote:Only spin avoidance training is in the PPL curriculum. The spin is not required on the PPL flight test.
LGM

Wrong. While the spin is not required on the test - and for that matter a full spin is now no longer required on the CPL test, it is still required to have the student enter and recover the spin during their PPL training. The student's performance in this regard is left up to the instructor.

That being said, TC doen't do much to monitor this and I'm aware that some instructors are not fulfilling this requirement, being under the impression that since it isn't a test item, that spins aren't required.

Right on. I never did a single spin by myself during the PPL, and I had to argue so I get to see at least one done by my instructor...

When I did my PPL I never saw a spin, only entries that rapidly turned into spiral dives due to the unspinable nature of the later model 172s. I was well into my CPL (and was doing most of the dual in twins) when I realized that I was going to have to demonstrate a spin and recovery for my test. Fortunately it was in an older 172 with the smaller dorsal, so they spun quite easily, but what a wake up call!

...my 2 cents:

I'm not an instructor, nor do I fly for a living, so I hope my comments are not out of line on your forum. I have very few hours. Most of what I've read in stall/spin accident reports is the aircraft is close the ground and close to the airport. Lots of my type of A/C spun in on the base/final turn.

I think the spin portion of the PPL or CPL is important. Not to save the pilot from low altitude recovery, but to give them the abilities to know how to get out of an inadvertent spin while practicing other airwork at a high altitudes. I am a seasonal flyer and only fly spring through fall. Every spring I take my airplane up to 5000' agl and go through all airwork on CPL exam, and add more aggresive stall manouvres, power-off/power-on...blah..blah...including 60 degree, full flap, gear down, power on. This isn't to re-learn how to recover, it's to relearn what the airplane tells me pre- and post stall; things that can happen close to the ground. If I wasn't introduced to spins, I wouldn't be practicing these stalls to help me remember what it all feels like when I do something stupid like tighten my base-final turn too much so I can properly line up with the numbers on roll-out.

Anyway, I think TC has it right with stall awareness, but lost when the student only stalls the airplane a couple of times and scared to add variations to it (such as bank angles) because of the dreaded stall-spin.

In short. Teach new pilots how to get out of a spin so they can learn the airplane talks back before stalling, how the airplane reacts when it does stall, and that every airplane will act differently.

I think people are getting upset recovery confused with spin training here. Spin recovery is pretty basic and most commercial pilots should have a handle on stall/spin avoidance. Upset recovery training is how to react once your aircraft ends up inverted or pointed straight up or what ever else may happen.

I'd speculate that if the 'upset recovery' skill aren't practiced on a semi-regular basis, they'd be of little benefit three years down the line when an event actually does happen. Complacency that you recovered from inverted three times in an Extra isn't going to make a lick of difference when your Bonanza points its wheels at the sky. It's safer and more efficient to use superior judgment to avoid unnecessary attitudes in the air. See that 737 ahead of us on final? Good, now don't fly into his wake. You do remember From the Ground Up, right?

I've never ever had an airplane jump upsidedown on me when I didn't tell it to do so, in past experience- are they coming out with new unstable models pilots will have to prepare for?

I've never ever had an airplane jump upsidedown on me when I didn't tell it to do so

I guess you're too young to remember the B737 temperature problems with the hydraulics in the rudder. Most of the pilots - and their pax - died when they rolled upside down. Some of the pilots - and their pax - survived.

Cat driver was flipped upside down on final once - wake turbulence.

Air Alaska once had a bad day with a jackscrew in an MD-83.

etc.

I guess some people don't need to train for emergencies - like engine failures, or fires, or flight control problems - because they know it will never happen to them.

The recent thread here on rolling a jet - an incredibly easy task, even starting at the surface - showed just how bad the fundamental stick and rudder skills of many professional pilots are these days. I literally winced as I read that thread because of the incredible misunderstanding of simple high school physics by so many ATPL holders.

http://www.pittspecials.com/images/roll.jpg

Shiny Side Up wrote:
I've always been of the opinion that if someone is DUMB enough to get into a spin, then it would be a pretty big leap to think that they would be smart enough to have remembered the recovery. How many pilots here have been in a spin unintentionally? How many of those that did recovered in time? You won't find many who answer yes to both questions.

Actually you will find a lot of people who can answer yes to both questions. Practice doing hammer heads for the first few times. There is a reason people call them " Hammer Spins"